Obama will wipe the floor with any of the rejects the GOP has fielded. I just hope he has learned something from the last 4 years about heavily divided politics.

Had I (and I'm sure many others) known how easy he had it in Chicago, I would have voted for Hillary. Expirence was never really even brought up in 2008, she had him well trumped in that area but we just never heard about it.

What are you talking about? That was all anyone said about him in 2008. He has no experience, he is just a community organizer, blah blah blah.

Had I (and I'm sure many others) known how easy he had it in Chicago, I would have voted for Hillary. Expirence was never really even brought up in 2008, she had him well trumped in that area but we just never heard about it.

Are you saying that Barack Obama's lack of experience wasn't brought up by the other candidates during the democratic primaries?

Oh I got ya. You're saying that Obama will get a bump once the primaries are over? You think his poll numbers will go up during the presidential debates? Or down?

I think that the numbers will change with the debates and when he starts running advertisements once he actually has an opponent. Right now all you see is 4 GOP Candidates talking about how terrible Obama is because ______ and if they are in charge how they will do ____ and ____ to save the US! A normal human being, when bombarded over and over by one side, starts to agree with that opinion. But they also have short memories and once Obama starts spending money to run adds, be they 'look what I did for you' or 'look at how my opponent is scum because _____', numbers will change.

I personally think that those numbers are the highest the GOP can hope for in those states because their message is about the only one getting out right now. The Democrats aren't spending really any money for ads that I have seen.

I think that the numbers will change with the debates and when he starts running advertisements once he actually has an opponent. Right now all you see is 4 GOP Candidates talking about how terrible Obama is because ______ and if they are in charge how they will do ____ and ____ to save the US! A normal human being, when bombarded over and over by one side, starts to agree with that opinion. But they also have short memories and once Obama starts spending money to run adds, be they 'look what I did for you' or 'look at how my opponent is scum because _____', numbers will change.

I personally think that those numbers are the highest the GOP can hope for in those states because their message is about the only one getting out right now. The Democrats aren't spending really any money for ads that I have seen.

I understand what you're saying. But by then there will be a single GOP candidate with the party behind him, with campaign ads focused on defeating Obama, not attacking other GOP candidates.

But Wells was right, it is early. I just disagreed with the part about Obama barely starting.

I understand what you're saying. But by then there will be a single GOP candidate with the party behind him, with campaign ads focused on defeating Obama, not attacking other GOP candidates.

But Wells was right, it is early. I just disagreed with the part about Obama barely starting.

This is true, but the incumbent always has a significant advantage in votes, and the GOP is becoming more and more fragmented when their main strength for years has been how the entire party marches in lock-step. Like when people say that Obama should have rammed his proposal through because he had a supermajority, those people are obviously taking their info from a republican/right wing source, since the rest of the world understands that liberals, as a whole, disagree with a lot and are willing to vote against something their party wants if they don't agree with it.

We need tax increases, and a slash to spending, and then we need to get out of Afghanistan. The only thing I like about any of the Rep Candidates is Pauls foreign policy of not giving aid to nations who aren't allies and closing a lot of our overseas bases.

I voted for Obama last election, and will again in this one as he's done his job well (for the most part).

First off, when I voted for Obama - I fully expected a SLOW transition out of the Economic crisis... He said this in his intial election speech that it woudl be slow, and he's right. Right now we (seem to be) coming out into the clear. Minus any more nasty corporate bankruptcies or world events, things should be on the upswing of things again.

Likewise he came through with one of his initial campaign promises: To end the War on Iraq, to withdraw troops from there and re-direct them to Afganastan to get Osama Bin Laden. He did EXACTLY that - to a tee.

As far as him caving on some stuff? I actually expected him to... as that's what good negotiations and partnerships do. Ask any married couple. You give and take. You get some things, and you give in others. Sadly, however, I'm seeing the republicans being the "abusive lover" in this relationship and is constantly taking and never giving - and, more importantly, yelling at their spouse when they want to do something their way. I do hope Obama takes a harder stance this next go around...

Obama also is getting my vote as he specifically addressed recently the problem of Outsourcing and eliminating tax breaks for those sending jobs overseas, and wanting to reverse that to give benefits for those who employ Americans. Being an American who's entire career job pool (high-end Photo/color retouching) has been handed over to China and other companies overseas, this has left me unemployed for almost two years (after being employed for over 11) - barely scraping it by via unemployment checks and the occasional freelance gig I seldom find these days...

"Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

Originally Posted by BenBos

That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

I understand what you're saying. But by then there will be a single GOP candidate with the party behind him, with campaign ads focused on defeating Obama, not attacking other GOP candidates.

But Wells was right, it is early. I just disagreed with the part about Obama barely starting.

But he isn't really. He's doing some fundraising but any ads they're running are testing the waters kind of things, not full blown efforts. He's not going around making the major speeches or going on the long campaign trail. Is he campaigning? Of course, but not much yet.

Congratulations on graduating to expert level trolling, I would stick around but I'm busy getting gay married in 13 states and performing roadside abortions while passing bills that take away people's guns while i sip superior european wine and cheese i bought with european style socialist money, arrivaderci!

Troof, all the systems and intellegence networks were put in place by his predecessor. Though you do have to give him credit for not being a major "p" word and giving the command to go in.

Originally Posted by Wells

Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

no thanks

4 more years barry soetoro or obama or whatever his name is will destroy the United States. He will destroy all of our constitutional rights should he be elected into office once more. He has already destroyed our right to trial... he can lock us away without trial at this very moment if he wanted. He signed that bill right last month. BHO is ineligible to serve anyways his biological father was a British subject in Kenya. You can't be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are citizens.

What this country really needs is no political parties because they mostly just breed corruption and no representation for the people. America needs leaders who won't bow to the Chicoms or the King of Saud.

America needs leaders who will enforce our borders, language (english) and culture. Which is what defines a nation.

There's this guy, his name is Wells. I like him because he uses sources and quotes to back up what he says.

Obama did good with what he had. Having a majority in Congress that was rather abrasive and didn't want to get anything done unless it was their exact idea, despite being in the same party. Later having the Republicans pigeon hole every Democratic piece of legislature because it wasn't their party's idea, instead of doing what they were sworn in to do.

The GOP candidates, for the most part, are jokes. Romney and Paul are the only ones with a shot, but we all know the GOP won't let Paul be their nominee. I haven't spent too much time looking at Romney's voting record or anything, or really looked into him at all, so I have no clue about him for the most part.

I don't know if I'd put that much emphasis on what a former member of Powell's staff has to say. As for the closing of the Bin Laden station, the Wikipedia entry hardly offers any support to the argument that Bush stopped looking for him. In fact, it only has one sentence, "The Bin Laden Station was disbanded in late 2005"

The citation after that sentence links to a NYT story which says this

"The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

When you say Bush "stopped looking for him", I'm assuming you mean the United States government during Bush's presidency, and not the president specifically. I mean, you're not suggesting that the president himself was in Tora Bora with a pair of binoculars, right? So when make that claim, you have to be able to prove that there were no intelligence officials or men in the field attempting to ascertain Bin Laden's whereabouts. I would say that the fact that he remained on the FBI's most wanted list alone proves that the US Gov't was looking for him.

You're saying Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden in 2005. We didn't learn the name of the courier until 2007. I give Obama huge credit, and it was a gutsy call. But to not acknowledge that is was the culmination of years of effort by intelligence officials going back to the Bush administration is ridiculous.

I don't know if I'd put that much emphasis on what a former member of Powell's staff has to say. As for the closing of the Bin Laden station, the Wikipedia entry hardly offers any support to the argument that Bush stopped looking for him. In fact, it only has one sentence, "The Bin Laden Station was disbanded in late 2005"

The citation after that sentence links to a NYT story which says this

"The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

When you say Bush "stopped looking for him", I'm assuming you mean the United States government during Bush's presidency, and not the president specifically. I mean, you're not suggesting that the president himself was in Tora Bora with a pair of binoculars, right? So when make that claim, you have to be able to prove that there were no intelligence officials or men in the field attempting to ascertain Bin Laden's whereabouts. I would say that the fact that he remained on the FBI's most wanted list alone proves that the US Gov't was looking for him.

You're saying Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden in 2005. We didn't learn the name of the courier until 2007. I give Obama huge credit, and it was a gutsy call. But to not acknowledge that is was the culmination of years of effort by intelligence officials going back to the Bush administration is ridiculous.

He wont care about any of this, he will never give anyone else credit for it but obama. None at all.

By the way, it was not a "Gutsy call" Any president, of any party, even if a communist had been elected, would have done the same exact thing. Not exactly what I would call gutsy.